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 30 June 2015, by Mr 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 player Player 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 30 June 2015, by Mr 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 player Player C, country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 September 2011, the players’ agent licensed by the Football Association of country B Agent E (hereinafter: “the Claimant 1”), the lawyer Agent A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and the player from country D, Player C (hereinafter: “the player”) signed an exclusive representation contract (hereinafter: “the contract”) valid from the date of signature until 31 August 2013. 2. Clause third of the contract established that the Claimants will be remunerated for their respective work with an amount equivalent to 10% of all the amounts that the player would perceive from any employment contracts negotiated by the Claimants. 3. Clause sixth of the contract established that the parties were bound to the jurisdiction and decision of the Ordinary Commercial Tribunal of country B. 4. On 3 December 2012, the player sent a registered letter (hereinafter: “the letter”) to both the Claimant 1 and the Claimant, by means of which he revoked the contract. 5. On 11 September 2013, the Claimant 1 and the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA against the player requesting the payment of commissions as follows: (1) EUR 70,159 representing 10% of the gross salary earned by the player with the club from country D, Club F in the seasons 2011/2012 and 2012/2013; (2) 10% of the gross salary earned by the player with the club from country D Club G since 31 January 2013 until the end of the employment contract; (3) Interest of 5% per annum on the aforementioned amounts and (4) Damage compensation for the alleged breach of contract done by the player calculated “ex aequo et bono”. 6. In particular, both Claimants argued that based on the contract concluded with the player, they negotiated the terms and conditions of the new employment contract concluded on 1 November 2011 between the player and the club from country D, Club F, obtaining a relevant increase of his salary. Therefore, both Claimants stated that they should be entitled to 10% of the player?s full remuneration. 7. Moreover, both Claimants alleged that on 1 January 2012 they assisted the player in the negotiation of a sponsorship contract with “Company X” valid until 31 July 2014. 8. Furthermore, both Claimants alleged that, with the consent of the club from country D, Club F, they started negotiating the transfer of the player after the end of the summer transfer window 2012/2013. Both Claimants negotiated with several important club from country Ds including Club G. However, unexpectedly on 3 December 2012 both Claimants received a letter from the player revoking the contract without any explanations and on 29 January 2013, the player concluded employment contract with Club G without their intervention. 9. In his response to the present claim, the player rejected it in its entirety. In particular, the player alleged that the present matter was inadmissible due to the following reasons: a) the claim was submitted jointly by both Claimants in violation of the Procedural Rules while the said rules established that each party shall send a separate claim. b) the claim lacked international dimension since the player is from Country B and the claimants as well. Furthermore, the player maintained that the Claimant was a players? agent licensed by the Football Federation of country D until 30 May 2011 date in which the said license was revoked. The player enclosed a copy of the decision rendered by the Football Federation of country D Players? Agent Commission dated 30 May 2011. c) in accordance with the clause sixth of the contract the competent tribunal to decide on the present dispute is the Country B Ordinary Court. 10. The player further alleged that the present claim was groundless since the contract was null and void taking into account that the Regulations do not allow two persons at the same time to represent a player in the negotiation of employment contracts. 11. Moreover, the player claimed that the contract was not registered at the Football Federation of country D in violation of clause seventh of the contract, article 19 par. 6 of the Regulations and domestic law. 12. The player alleged that it was false that both Claimants have jointly negotiated the employment contract concluded on 1 November 2011 between the player and Club F in order to improve his remuneration. In fact, the player explained that he had already concluded an employment contract with Club F on 1 July 2010 with the same financial conditions than the one signed on 1 November 2011. The player enclosed copy of the employment contract dated 1 July 2010 as evidence. 13. In this respect, the player stated that, in case FIFA would reject his position, both Claimants would at most be entitled to the following amounts: • Sporting season 2011/2012: EUR 19,410; • Sporting season 2012/2013: EUR 4,477.09. 14. Furthermore, the player alleged that it was also false that both Claimants carried out causal intervention on behalf of the player during the negotiation of the employment contract with Club G. In this respect, the player argued that the agent of the club, Agent Y, concluded all the negotiations on behalf of the club with the player and enclosed a copy of the said employment contract dated 30 January 2013. 15. In conclusion, the player alleged that both Claimants should not be remunerated since their activities were not causal. Besides, the player stated that both Claimants were not entitled to any damage compensation. 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, considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 September 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 matter at hand (cf. art. 21 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. 1 and 4 of the 2008 edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations, and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 11 September 2013, the edition 2008 of the Players’ Agents Regulations (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at stake as to the substance. 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. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that the present matter concerns a dispute opposing a players’ agent licensed by the Football Association of country B to a Player from country D 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. 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. 7. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that on 1 September 2011 the Claimant, the player and the Claimant 1 concluded the contract valid until 31 August 2013. 8. In this respect, the Single Judge remarked that at the time of the conclusion of the contract with the Respondent, the Claimant was not a licensed players? agent but in fact only intervened as legal advisor of the Respondent. 9. With the above-mentioned considerations in mind as well as considering the contents of art. 4 par. 2 and 3 of the Regulations which state that a legally authorised practising lawyer in compliance with the rules in force in his country of domicile may represent a player or a club in the negotiation of a transfer or employment contract, however, the activity of such exempt individuals does not fall under the jurisdiction of FIFA, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant, intervening as a lawyer in the celebration of the contract with the Respondent, was not a licensed players? agent and hence has no standing to sue the Respondent in front of the FIFA deciding-making bodies. 10. In view of all of the above, the Single Judge decided that the present dispute of the Claimant is rejected. 11. 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, including the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 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. 12. 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. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is over EUR 200,001. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 13. Considering the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings in the amount of CHF 12,500 and held that such costs have to be borne by the Claimant. Considering that the Claimant has already paid the amount of CHF 2,500 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present procedure, the Claimant shall therefore pay the remaining amount of CHF 10,000 to cover the costs of the proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Agent A, is rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings amounting to CHF 12,500 are to be paid by the Claimant, Agent A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. Taking into account that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 2,500 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present procedure, the Claimant, Agent A, shall pay the outstanding amount of CHF 10,000 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 ***** 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 Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives