F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2015-2016) – controversie agenti di calciatori –———-F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2015-2016) – 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 September 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ Agent A, country B as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club Club C, country D as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2015-2016) – controversie agenti di calciatori –----------F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2015-2016) – 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 September 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent Players’ Agent A, country B as “Claimant / Counter-Respondent” against the club Club C, country D as “Respondent / Counter-Claimant” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. According to the Claimant, on 30 September 2009, the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or simply: the Respondent) and the Players’ Agent A (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or simply: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Federation of country B, signed an agreement entitled “CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT” (hereinafter: the agreement), in relation to the transfer of the Player E from country F (hereinafter: the player), under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission amounting to USD 480,000 payable as follows: a. USD 200,000 “with the signature of the present contract [i.e. the agreement]; b. USD 140,000 “until April 15th 2010”; c. USD 140,000 “until August 15th 2010”. 2. On 25 July 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent arguing that, although the player had signed an employment contract with the Respondent, the latter had failed to respect its contractual obligations towards him and that, therefore, the sum of USD 480,000 was still outstanding. 3. Consequently, the Claimant requested the amount of USD 480,000 plus “interest from 30 September 2010, until the day of payment with full legal costs” as well as the sum of USD 25,000 as compensation for “moral damages”. 4. On 23 April 2013, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s complaint and rejected it in its entirety. The Respondent stressed that “there was no consultancy agreement [i.e. the agreement]” concluded with the Claimant but only a contract between the company “Company G” (hereinafter: the company) and the Respondent, under the terms of which the Respondent accepted to pay to the company the sum of USD 480,000 to “buy the sports rights of the player”. In other words, the Respondent was of the opinion that the agreement was forged and that the Claimant “has cut and pasted many parts from the original contract signed between Company G [i.e. the company] and Club C [i.e. the Respondent] changing clauses into articles and cutting the part concerning the way money are paid to Company G using dashes instead of Alphabetical, pasting stamps and signatures […]”. 5. The Respondent further stated that the name as well as the signature of Mr H, Secretary of the Respondent, could not possibly figure on the agreement since the latter “was only appointed on 21/1/2010”, i.e. after the conclusion of the alleged agreement. 6. In addition, the Respondent lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant and requested the sum of USD 1,000,000 as “compensation of damages caused to the name and reputation of the club”. 7. On 2 December 2013, the Claimant reiterated his previous argumentation and replied to the allegations of the Respondent by arguing that the agreement had been validly concluded between the parties. With regard to the signature of Mr H on the agreement, the Claimant deemed that it could not be expected of him to have known whether Mr H had the necessary authority to represent and bind the Respondent at the time the agreement was concluded. The Claimant further contested the employment contract concluded between Mr H and the Respondent and stated that “it was easy to make this employment contract for the purpose of this dispute”. 8. In its last comments dated 9 December 2014, the Respondent reiterated its position without adding anything new. 9. Upon FIFA’s request to provide the original version of the agreement, the Claimant informed FIFA on 23 March 2015 that he was not able to provide such agreement as “the original of the contract [i.e. the agreement] was in Respondent Club hands, as said in the Claim”. **** 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 25 July 2012, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the 2008 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 25 July 2012, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; 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 Federation of country B and a club 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, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging that, according to the Claimant, he had, on 30 September 2009, concluded an agreement with the Respondent in relation to the transfer of the Player E from country F and, therefore, the Claimant requested the amount of USD 480,000 stipulated in the agreement. 8. The Single Judge equally gave due consideration of the fact that the Respondent, for its part, had categorically denied having concluded such agreement with the Claimant alleging that its signature on such agreement was forged by the Claimant. Moreover, the Single Judge remarked that the Respondent alleged to have already signed another agreement with a company for the transfer of the player in question. 9. In view of the aforementioned dissent between the parties regarding the question as to whether or not an agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent had been concluded, the Single Judge firstly referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. The strict application of the said principle established in the Procedural Rules led the Single Judge to conclude that it was up to the Claimant to prove the existence of the agreement on the basis of which the latter requested his alleged outstanding commission. 10. Having stated the above, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent argued that he never signed an agreement with the Claimant and maintained that such copy of the agreement remitted by the Claimant was forged. Furthermore, the Single Judge remarked that the Claimant expressly admitted being unable to provide the relevant agreement in its original form signed by the hand of the parties. 11. On account of the above, the Single Judge, in accordance with his constant practice in similar matters, held that the fact that the Claimant had only submitted a copy of the disputed agreement was insufficient to establish the existence of the alleged contractual relationship. 12. In view of all the above, the Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Claimant could not prove the existence of any existing contractual relationship between the parties and therefore that the complaint of the Claimant has to be rejected. 13. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge turned his attention to the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent. In this regard, the Single Judge was keen to stress out that, according to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Respondent had not provided any documentary evidence which would have indicated that Respondent had suffered damages “to the name and reputation of the club” for an amount of USD 1,000,000. 14. As a consequence, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided to also reject the counter-claim of the Respondent. 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 both the claim of the Claimant and the counter-claim of the Respondent are rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the both parties have 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 higher than CHF 200,000, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 18. In conclusion and in view of the specific circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 25,000, i.e. CHF 20,000 to be paid by the Claimant and CHF 5,000 to be paid by the Respondent. Consequently and taking into account that both the Claimant and the Respondent had already paid the sum of CHF 5,000 each as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Single Judge determined that the amount of CHF 15,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the Respondent is exempted to pay anything. **** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Players’ Agent A, is rejected. 2. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 3. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 are to be paid by both parties to FIFA, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 3.1 The amount of CHF 20,000 has to be paid by the Claimant / CounterRespondent, Players’ Agent A. Given that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 3,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Players’ Agent A, has to pay the amount of CHF 17,000. 3.2 The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid by the Respondent / CounterClaimant, Club C. Given that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs during the present proceedings, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is exempted to pay the relevant procedural costs. 3.3 The abovementioned amount in point 3.1 has to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXXX: 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