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 Thomson (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 E, country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen 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 Thomson (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 E, country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 7 March 2013, the players’ agent, Agent A (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Federation of country B, and the player from country D, Player E (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an exclusive representation contract for the “countries belonging to region E” (hereinafter: the contract), valid from the date of its signature until 6 March 2015 and under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission amounting to 10% of the gross salary of the Respondent from any of the employment contracts negotiated or renegotiated by the Claimant. 2. Additionally, on the same date, the parties signed an annex to the contract (hereinafter: the annex), under the terms of which “the player [i.e. the Respondent] assigns to the players? agent [i.e. the Claimant] exclusively, the management and orientation of his career as a professional football player, representing him in the countries belonging to region E for the negotiations and signature of employment or other contracts, direct or indirectly linked to its professional activity” (cf. article 1 of the annex). 3. Furthermore, article 4 of the annex stated as follows: “The player [i.e. the Respondent] is obliged to inform to the player’s agent [i.e. the Claimant], about any contact or request for information regarding his professional activity”. 4. According to article 11 of the annex, “In case of violation of the current contract/annex, the player [i.e. the Respondent] will be responsible to compensate the players ‘agent [i.e. the Claimant]. A violation from the player [i.e. the Respondent] will be considered, if the latter without the authorization of the players? agent [i.e. the Claimant], negotiates, signs, cancels, renews, extends, or changes its current employment contract. The amount of the compensation hereinafter stipulated as a penalty clause, is of EUR 500,000 payable 15 days after the requirement by the players? agent”. 5. According to article 13 of the annex, “the players? agent [i.e. the Claimant] must make every efforts in order to improve the career of the player [i.e. the Respondent] and engage the best opportunities in order to obtain the maximum benefit for the player at a sporting and other levels. However, the players? agent cannot ensure the success for the engagement of one of this contracts or activities”. 6. According to article 14 of the annex, “Every communication between the parties regarding the representation contract [i.e. the contract] and its annex must be sent to the address indicated in the header of this annex. In case of change of address, the other party must be notified via postal email with proof of receipt”. 7. On 7 October 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent explaining that the latter had breached their contractual relationship and requesting the payment of EUR 500,000 as compensation as agreed in clause 11 of the annex as well as 4% interest as from 11 September 2013. 8. According to the Claimant, the Respondent was transferred in June 2013 from the club from country B, Club F, to the club from country G, Club H, and apparently signed an employment contract without informing the Claimant. According to the Claimant, he sent a letter dated 9 September 2013 to the Respondent requesting the payment of the above-mentioned compensation, but apparently the latter had changed his address without having informed him violating article 14 of the annex. Therefore, such letter dated 9 September 2013 was allegedly never received by the Respondent. 9. In his response dated 19 March 2014, the Respondent firstly explained to have never received the default letter dated 9 September 2013 allegedly sent to him, which was, according to him, a previous formal condition to pay the compensation according to the annex, and, consequently, such claim from the Claimant was prescribed according to the Law of country B. 10. In continuation and regarding the annex, the Respondent maintained that he “didn?t even knew about it existence”. 11. With regard to the substance, the Respondent alleged that, after the signature of the contract on 7 March 2013, the Claimant did not provide any services whatsoever and never contacted him again. As a consequence of such behaviour from the Claimant, the Respondent deemed that the annex and the contract were no longer valid. According to the Respondent, his transfer to the club from country G, Club H, was made without the intervention of the Claimant and, therefore, the requested compensation must be considered “abusive and disproportionate”. 12. On 7 July 2014, the Claimant reiterated his initial claim and maintained that the correspondence dated 9 September 2013 was sent to the Respondent’s address indicated in the annex and, therefore, must be considered valid. 13. The Respondent, in his last submission, reiterated his previous position. ***** 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 took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 October 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are 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’ 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 7 October 2013, 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. Therefore, the Single Judge continued his deliberations by indicating that the present matter concerns a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Federation of country B and a player 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 remarked that the parties had concluded a contract as well as an annex for the exclusive representation of the Respondent in the “countries belonging to region E”. In this respect, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission amounting to 10% of the gross salary of the Respondent from any of the employment contracts negotiated or renegotiated by the Claimant. Additionally, the Single Judge observed that according to the annex, the parties agreed on a compensation in the amount of EUR 500,000 in the event that the Respondent “negotiates, signs, cancels, renews, extend or changes its current employment contract” without the formal approval of the Claimant. 8. In continuation, the Single Judge took note that, the Claimant had requested from the Respondent the payment of the total amount of EUR 500,000, as well as 4% interest per year as from 11 September 2013, corresponding to the agreed compensation in case of breach of the obligations set in the annex. In this regard, the Single Judge observed that according to the Claimant, the Respondent was transferred in June 2013 from the club from country B Club F to the club from country G, Club H, without having informed the latter. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note of the default notice sent by the Claimant to the Respondent on 9 September 2013 requesting the payment of the agreed compensation. 9. Likewise, the Single Judge remarked that, for its part, the Respondent had rejected the Claimant’s complaint arguing that he had never received the alleged default notice dated 9 September 2013, which was a previous formal condition to pay the compensation and added that he never knew about the existence of any annex. Additionally, the Single Judge observed that according to the Respondent, after the signature of the contract, the Claimant had not provided any services whatsoever and, therefore, considered that such contract was not valid. Finally, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in his statement of defence, the Respondent had maintained that the Claimant had not participated in the negotiations for his transfer to the club from country G, Club H and, therefore, the compensation allegedly contractually agreed should be considered abusive and disproportionate. 10. In view of the above and to begin with, the Single Judge recalled that no evidence had been provided by the Respondent in support of the allegations concerning the unawareness of the annex signed between him and the Claimant as well as the failure to send the default notice. Hence, the Single Judge referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and stressed that any party deriving a right from an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. Consequently and since the Respondent had not been able to prove the above-mentioned arguments and that the Claimant provided a copy of the annex signed by both parties as well as the evidence of the default notice sent to the Respondent to the address specified in the contract, the Single Judge concluded that it had to be assumed that, the contract and annex were valid and binding upon between the Claimant and the Respondent. 11. Having said this, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that the activity of players’ agents is a function intended to bring players and clubs together, so as to establish working relations, i.e. the players’ agents’ negotiations should culminate in the signing of mutually acceptable contracts between players and clubs. In this context, the Single Judge referred to a letter addressed to all licensed players’ agents in June 1999, whereby the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee informed the players’ agents that it had discussed at its meeting in Zurich on 27 August 1998 cases in which players’ agents had demanded a fee from players, even though employment contracts had been concluded between the players and the clubs without the agents’ involvements. In this respect, the Bureau held that players’ agents activities must be causal to the concluding of employment contracts. The Bureau further decided that, as a general rule, if an employment contract is signed without the involvement of a players’ agent, the player concerned does not owe any commission to the agent. This said, the Single Judge recalled that this legal interpretation of the Bureau of the Players’ Status Committee addressed to all players’ agents in June 1999 is still applicable and has since been confirmed by the Players’ Status Committee’s constant jurisprudence. 12. Notwithstanding the above, and referring again to the letter addressed to all licensed players’ agents in June 1999, the Single Judge pointed out that the Bureau had also called attention to the fact that players’ agents may, nevertheless, claim commission if they have not been actively involved in a transfer, if a clause to this effect is explicitly and unequivocally stipulated in the representation agreement. 13. With those considerations in mind, the Single Judge recalled that the annex to the contract did include an explicit clause, i.e. clause 11 of the annex, which entitled the Claimant to receive from the Respondent the payment of the amount of EUR 500,000 as a penalty compensation in case the Respondent “without the authorisation of the players? agent [i.e. the Claimant] negotiates, signs, cancels, renews, extends or changes its current employment contract”. The Single Judge held that such clause is to be interpreted as a penalty clause in the sense of the aforementioned letter of June 1999. Furthermore, the Single Judge pointed out that in accordance with article 1 of the annex “the player [i.e. the Respondent] assigns to the players? agent [i.e. the Claimant] exclusively, the management and orientation of his career as a professional football player, representing him in the countries of the countries belonging to region E for the negotiations and signature of employment or other contracts, direct or indirectly linked to its professional activity”. Thus, the parties to the agreement had agreed upon an exclusive representation contract of the Respondent by the Claimant. 14. Bearing in mind all the above, and, in particular, taking into account that the Claimant had informed about the transfer of the Respondent in June 2013 and that the latter had admitted it, the Single Judge also referred to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations which, inter alia, stipulates that “within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of said regulations, FIFA may use any documentation or evidence generated by or contained in TMS in order to properly assess the issue at stake”. Taking into account the preceding paragraph of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, the Single Judge observed from the information provided by the Claimant and contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) that the Respondent was transferred from Club F to Club H on 13 July 2013, i.e. during the validity of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent, without having informed the Claimant. As a consequence, the Single Judge concluded that the contract as well as the annex had been breached by the Respondent and determined that the latter has to compensate the Claimant accordingly. 15. Having established the aforementioned and as to the concrete amount payable by the Respondent to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract, the Single Judge recalled once again that the Claimant had requested the payment of EUR 500,000 as provided in article 11 of the annex. Equally, the Single Judge also took note that the Respondent considered such compensation abusive and disproportionate. Therefore, in order to concrete the amount of the compensation, the Single Judge wished to remark that the contract provided a commission amounting to 10% of the gross salary received from the employment contracts negotiated by the Claimant and that, according to the employment contract contained in the Transfer Matching System concluded between the Respondent and Club H, the Respondent was entitled to receive a gross salary in the total amount of EUR 3,360,000. Therefore taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, the Single Judge considered that the compensation agreed in article 11 of the annex is to be considered disproportionate and excessive. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided to partially accept the Claimant?s claim and that the Respondent must pay not the entire compensation contractually agreed, but the amount of EUR 400,000, which was to be considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of the contract and its annex in the case at hand. 16. On account of the above, considering the claim of the Claimant as well as the wording of clause 11 of the annex and bearing mind the content of the new employment contract concluded between the Respondent and Club H, the Single Judge ruled that the latter had to pay to the Claimant, as compensation for breach of contract, the amount of EUR 400,000. Furthermore, the Single Judge decided that in accordance with the Claimant’s respective request, an interest at the rate of 4 % per year on the aforementioned amount as from 25 September 2013 (i.e. 15 days after the requirement by the Claimant as provided in article 11 of the annex) until the date of effective payment shall apply. 17. 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. 18. On account of the above and considering that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge concluded that both parties have to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 19. 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 over CHF 200,001. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 20. 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 18,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 10,000 has to be paid by the Respondent and the amount of CHF 8,000 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, Agent A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Player E, has to pay to the Claimant, Agent A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 400,000 as well as 4% interest per year on the said amount as from 25 September 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Agent A, are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned 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. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 18,000 are to be paid by both parties to FIFA, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 5.1 The amount of CHF 10,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Player E. 5.2 The amount of CHF 8,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Agent A, to FIFA. Given that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Agent A, has to pay the amount of CHF 3,000. 5.3 The abovementioned amounts in points 5.1 and 5.2 have to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr. xxxxxxxxx: 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, Player E, 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