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 Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent A, country C represented by Mr xxxxxx as “Claimant” against the club B, country B represented by Mr xxxxxx as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I.

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 Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent A, country C represented by Mr xxxxxx as “Claimant” against the club B, country B represented by Mr xxxxxx as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 25 May 2013, the club from B, B (hereinafter: the Respondent) and the players’ agent A (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Association of C, concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) valid until 31 August 2013. 2. According to art. 1 of the agreement, the Respondent “exclusively authorises the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] to negotiate the loan of the rights of the professional football player Z (hereinafter called the Player) to any Club in Europe, Russia, Israel, Middle East (hereinafter called Club X)”. 3. Art. 3 of such agreement stated that “in case of successful loan of the Player […] Club A [i.e. the Respondent] agrees to pay the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] 10% (ten percent) of the annual remuneration of the player with Club X, as commission for his services in loaning the Player from Club A [i.e. the club] to Club X”. 4. On 1 November 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent arguing that, although he had tried to negotiate the loan of the player to the club, P, the Respondent decided to conclude a loan agreement for the player with the club, V without informing the Claimant. In this respect, the Claimant explained to have negotiated and received an official loan offer from P, but the Respondent rejected such proposal without any reason. The Claimant further explained to have been also involved in the negotiation for the loan of the player to V but the Respondent signed such loan without involving him. 5. Consequently, the Claimant deemed that the Respondent breached the agreement and requested the total amount of EUR 7,500, i.e. 10% of the alleged total salary of the player with V, which allegedly amounted to EUR 75,000. 6. The Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim in its entirety and argued that the Claimant was not involved in the negotiations for the loan of the player to V. In this respect, the Respondent provided a statement of V which stated that “the Loan Agreement for the Player […] was signed without the Licensed Players Agent A [i.e. the Claimant] from the Football Association of C as he did not represent V”. The Respondent further stated that the parties did not agree to an exclusivity clause in the agreement that would grant to the Claimant a right to claim a fee “even if he was not active and even if the loan contract had been arranged by the Respondent itself”. 7. In his replica, the Claimant reiterated his initial claim and added that “even if we assume that the Claimant did not contribute to the transfer of the player to the V, we deem that the Claimant is entitled to be compensated by the Respondent due to the work he did for the Respondent according to their agreement and instructions given by the Respondent to him”. The Claimant also pointed out that he had an exclusive agreement with the Respondent and the latter even proposed the amount of EUR 4,000 “for full settlement of the dispute” regarding the transfer of the player to V. 8. Therefore, the Claimant eventually requested the Respondent to pay him the total amount of EUR 7,500. 9. In its last comments, the Respondent mainly reiterated its previous allegations and stressed that the Claimant was unable to prove that he had been involved in the negotiations for the transfer of the player on loan to V. 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 view of the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 November 2013, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 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 of the Procedural Rules). 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 1 November 2013, the 2008 edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (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 Association of C and a club from B, 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. Before doing so, the Single Judge was keen to recall the content of article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules 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. With the aforementioned in mind, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded on 25 May 2013 an agreement valid until 31 August 2013, by means of which the Claimant was exclusively authorised to negotiate the loan of the player from the Respondent to any clubs in “Europe, Russia, Israel, Middle East” and according to which he would be entitled to receive from the Respondent, in case of successful loan of the player to a third club, 10% of the annual remuneration of the player with the possible third club. 8. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that on 22 July 2013 the player was transferred on loan from the Respondent to the club, V (hereinafter: V), and that the player concluded an employment contract with the latter, valid from 18 July 2013 until 30 May 2014 for an undisclosed wage. 9. In continuation, the Single Judge observed that, on the one hand, the Claimant had argued that he had been involved in the negotiations in connection with the loan of the player to V but was excluded from the conclusion of the loan agreement and that, consequently, he was entitled to receive from the Respondent 10% of the player’s salary with his new club V as the Respondent had breached the contractual relationship with him. The Respondent had, on the other hand, contested the Claimant’s entitlement to receive any kind of compensation in connection with the transfer of the player from the Respondent to V, arguing that the Claimant had not at all been involved in the relevant negotiations. 10. With those considerations in mind and as a preliminary remark, the Single Judge sought to recall that the activity of players’ agents is a function intended to bring a player and a club or two clubs together, so as to establish a working relationship between the parties concerned (cf. par. 1 of the Definitions of the Regulations as well as art. 1 par. 1 of the Regulations), and that, consequently, the negotiations led by a players’ agent should culminate in the signing of an employment contract between a particular player and a club or to the conclusion of a transfer agreement between two clubs. 11. In continuation, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that, in accordance with the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee, a players’ agent’s activity must be causal in concluding an employment contract, that is, as a general rule, if a contract is signed without the involvement of a players’ agent, the player concerned does not owe the agent any commission. 12. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee was keen to stress, referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, that the Claimant had not provided any clear and convincing documentary evidence which would have indicated that he had taken part in the negotiations leading up to the conclusion of the loan agreement between the Respondent and V. What is more, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent had been able to provide a statement from an official of the club V confirming that the Claimant had not been involved in the transfer of the player from the Respondent to V. 13. Bearing in mind the aforementioned and taking into account that the Claimant could not prove that the loan agreement concluded between the Respondent and V was not negotiated by him, as well as considering the well-established jurisprudence of the Players’ Status Committee in similar cases, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant is not entitled to receive any commission from the Respondent in connection with the transfer of the player. 14. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided to reject the claim of the Claimant. 15. Lastly, 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 rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant 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 is less than CHF 50,000, 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 circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 4,000. Consequently and taking into account that the Claimant had already paid the sum of CHF 1,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid by the Claimant 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 rejected. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 4,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 1,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant has to pay the amount of CHF 3,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 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