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 22 May 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent 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 22 May 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent 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 30 June 2012, the players’ agent, Agent A (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Association of country B, and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an exclusive “FIFA Mandate of Representation” (hereinafter: the agreement). According to article 2 of the agreement, the purpose of the said agreement was the transfer of the player Player E (hereinafter: the player) from the Respondent to the club from country F, Club G (hereinafter: Club G), before 31 August 2012. 2. Pursuant to article 3 of the agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission amounting to EUR 215,000, i.e. the sum of EUR 125,000 on 31 December 2012 and of EUR 90,000 on 30 June 2013. Additionally, article 3 of the agreement stated as follows: “Club C [i.e. the Respondent] shall pay the abovementioned fees una tantum in the case the essential condition here above stated under item 2) of this agreement comes true, in compliance with the FIFA / Football Federation of country D regulations presently in force and provided that the Player?s transfer is actually finalized thanks to the professional activity performed by the Agent [i.e. the Claimant]. Club C moreover will be obliged to pay to Agent a 5% fee in case that Club C will be remunerated for conditional transfer compensation, if specified in the contract between Club C and Club G, within 30 days of the payment from Club G”. 3. Equally, article 5 of the agreement stated as follows: “The Agent?s [i.e. the Claimant] right to receive the fee here above agreed and specified under item 3) is subject to the essential condition of the actual registration of the Player with Club G, within and no later than 31 August 2012”. 4. On 24 February 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, claiming that the latter had failed to pay his alleged commission. Therefore, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 265,000, plus legal interests over the amount of EUR 125,000 from 31 December 2012 and over the sum of EUR 140,000 from 30 June 2013 as well as “legal cost” for an amount of EUR 10,000. 5. According to the Claimant, the player was transferred to Club G “due to the professional activities performed by the agent [i.e. the Claimant] as mentioned in the mandate [i.e. the agreement]”. Furthermore and based on the agreement, the Claimant alleged having sent the relevant invoices as well as several correspondences dated 17 July, 4 October 2012, 17 July 2013 and 12 February 2014 to the Respondent in order to obtain the payment of such amount. However, the Claimant explained that the Respondent never replied. 6. In its response dated 28 April 2014, the Respondent neither contested the validity of the agreement nor the transfer of the player to Club G, but argued that the Claimant “failed to provide the evidence corroborating his involvement in the transfer of the player to Club G”. 7. Additionally, the Respondent stressed out that Claimant?s name did not appear in the relevant transfer agreement between Club G and the Respondent as required by the “FIFA players? Agent Regulations”. Therefore, the Respondent requested FIFA to dismiss the claim lodged by the Claimant. 8. On 6 October 2014, the Claimant reiterated his previous allegations and added that the fact that the agreement was exclusive and signed by himself and that such agreement was still valid at the time the transfer agreement was concluded between the Respondent and Club G clearly proved that the Claimant was involved in the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club G. 9. Furthermore, the Claimant enclosed the following evidences in order to show his involvement in the transfer of the player to Club G: i. An email dated 27 June 2012 with a proposal for the transfer of the player sent by Club G to the Respondent and the brother of Agent A, the brother of the Claimant who was, according to the Claimant, helping in the negotiations. ii. An email dated 30 June 2012 from the Respondent to the brother of Agent A, i.e. the Claimant’s brother, enclosing a draft of a Commission Agreement (hereinafter: the draft agreement) between the Respondent and the Claimant “represented by the brother of Agent A” and “for the services only in connection with the transfer of the Player E. iii. A statement from Club G dated 16 October 2014 confirming that the Claimant and the brother of Agent A “were involved in the negotiations between Club C and Club G, leading to the transfer of Player E, to our Club in July 2012”. 10. The Respondent, in its last submission dated 2 December 2014, maintained its position and argued that the documents enclosed by the Claimant only showed some conversations with the Claimant’s brother but not the personal involvement of the Claimant himself in the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club G. Moreover, the Respondent also argued that Club G and the Respondent reached the essential terms of the transfer agreement several days before the signature of the agreement with the Claimant as per the emails exchanged between Club G and the Respondent (cf. point 9 a. and b.). Lastly, the Respondent deemed that the exclusivity of the agreement did not bind the Respondent to represent itself in the conclusion of the transfer agreement with Club G. 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 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the 2012 2014 and 2015 editions of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 February 2014, thus after 1 December 2012 and before 1 August 2014. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of 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 as to the substance in the matter at hand. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 39 par. 1 and 4 of the 2008 edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations, considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 February 2014, 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 alleged 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 and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 7. In doing so and to begin with, the Single Judge noted that, on 30 June 2012, the parties concluded the agreement for the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club G before 31 August 2012, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission amounting to EUR 215,000, payable in two instalments, the first one in the amount of EUR 125,000 on 31 December 2012, and the second one amounting to EUR 90,000 on 30 June 2013 as well as an additional “5% fee in case that Club C will be remunerated for conditional transfer compensation, if specified in the contract between Club C and Club G, within 30 days of the payment from Club G”. 8. The Single Judge also observed that the agreement stipulated that the abovementioned commission would be due subject to the condition that the player would be registered with Club G by no later than 31 August 2012 thanks to the professional activity performed by the Claimant. 9. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had requested from the Respondent the payment of the total amount of EUR 265,000, plus legal interest over the amount of EUR 125,000 from 31 December 2012, and over the sum of EUR 140,000 from 30 June 2013, as well as “legal costs” for an amount of EUR 10,000, alleging that his work led to the conclusion of the transfer of the player to Club G. 10. Likewise, the Single Judge remarked that, for its part, the Respondent, although not contesting having concluded the agreement with the Claimant, rejected the Claimant’s claim arguing that the Claimant had failed to prove his involvement in the transfer of the player to Club G. Additionally, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had argued that the Claimant’s name did not appear in the transfer agreement between Club G and the Respondent as required by the Regulations confirming the non-involvement of the Claimant in the transfer of the player to Club G. 11. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that the aforementioned claim of the Claimant was based on the agreement which stipulated, inter alia, that the Claimant would receive the above-mentioned commission subject to the condition that the player would be transferred from the Respondent to Club G before 31 August 2012 thanks to the professional activity performed by the Claimant. 12. In continuation, the Single Judge was keen to stress that, according to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which states that “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”, the Claimant had provided evidences such as exchange of emails dated 27 and 30 June 2012, respectively, as well as a statement dated 16 October 2014 from Club G confirming the involvement of the Claimant in the negotiations for the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club G. Therefore, the Single Judge held that in casu it is clearly established that the transfer of the player from the Respondent to Club G occurred as a result of the professional work of the Claimant. 13. Additionally and with regard to the allegation of the Respondent concerning the lack of the Claimant’s name in the transfer agreement between Club G and the Respondent as it is required by the Regulations, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that, regardless of whether the document in question also bore the signature of the Claimant or not, the Respondent had clearly undertaken to pay the commission of EUR 215,000 to the Claimant if the transfer of the player to Club G was completed before 31 August 2012 with the involvement of the Claimant. 14. Having established the aforementioned and as to the concrete amount payable to the Claimant as commission for the services rendered, the Single Judge recalled that the latter was requesting the payment of EUR 265,000, arguing that the sum in question allegedly corresponded to the commission agreed upon the agreement. 15. In this regard, the Single Judge reverted to the content of the agreement and was eager to point out that, such agreement clearly provided the payment of a commission amounting to EUR 215,000 payable in two instalments of EUR 125,000 on 31 December 2012 and of EUR 90,000 on 30 June 2013 in the event the player would be transferred from the Respondent to Club G before 31 August 2012 thanks to the professional activity performed by the Claimant. 16. In view of all the aforementioned considerations and taking into account the basic legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda” which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, as well as considering the evidences provided by the Claimant confirming his involvement in the transfer of the player to Club G as well as the agreement concluded between the parties, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Respondent has to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the outstanding sum of EUR 215,000 corresponding to the two instalments agreed upon in the agreement, i.e. EUR 125,000 and EUR 90,000. 17. In continuation and with regard to the Claimant’s claim related to the reimbursement of the legal expenses, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules in accordance with which “no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings of the Players’ Status Committee and the DRC”. Therefore, the Single Judge ruled that the relevant request of the Claimant has to be rejected because it lacked legal basis. 18. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 215,000 as outstanding commission in two different instalments of EUR 125,000 and of EUR 90,000, respectively. 19. Finally, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay interest over the different instalments the day after each due dates. In other words, the Single Judge held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 125,000 as well as 5% interest per year on the said amount from 1 January 2013 until the date of effective payment and the sum of EUR 90,000 as well as 5% interest per year on the said sum from 1 July 2013 until the date of effective payment. 20. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 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 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. 21. 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 concluded that the costs of the current proceedings are to borne by both parties on the basis of their respective degree of success in the present matter. 22. 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 that the total amount at dispute is over CHF 200,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 23. In conclusion, considering that the case at hand was adjudicated by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status Committee in corpore and that the present case did not show particular factual difficulties or specific legal complexities but bearing in mind the amount of submissions that had to be analysed, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 18,000. 24. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay the amount of CHF 12,000 and the Claimant the sum of CHF 6,000 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, Agent A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Agent A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, the total amount of EUR 215,000 as follows : a. EUR 125,000 plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 1 January 2013 until the date of effective payment; b. EUR 90,000 plus an interest at a rate of 5% per year on the said amount from 1 July 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned total amount, plus interest as established above, 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. Any other claims lodged by the Claimant, Agent A, are rejected. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 18,000 are to be paid by both parties, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 6,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Agent A. Considering that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of CHF 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Agent A, has to pay the remaining amount of CHF 1,000. 5.2 The amount of CHF 12,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club C. 5.3 Both amounts have to be paid directly to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. xxxxxxxxxxxx: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 6. The Claimant, Agent A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 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 article 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