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 16 March 2016, 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” against the club Club C, country D as “Respondent” 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 16 March 2016, 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” against the club Club C, country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 November 2010, the Club C from country D (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) and the players’ agent A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”), licensed by the Football Association of country B, signed an agreement entitled “Mandate” (hereinafter: the 1st agreement) valid from the date of its signature until 30 June 2011, under the terms of which “Club C [i.e. the Respondent] awards exclusive mandate to the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] to take care Club’s [i.e. the Respondent] interests giving assistance on registration of the player Mr. E [hereinafter: the player]”. Pursuant to article 3 of the 1st agreement, “for his work the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] will receive the following amounts: a. EUR 1.500.000,00 to be paid after 7 days to the receipt of International Transfer Certificate by Club C [i.e. the Respondent] and after receipt of invoice and fiscal declarations from the Agent; b. EUR 500.000,00 to be paid after 60 (sixty) days from the player’s 5th match in official competitions (Championship, country D’s Cup, European Cups) during only the first season on which player will be registered for Club C and after receipt of invoice and fiscal declarations from the Agent; c. EUR 500.000,00 to paid after 60 (sixty) days from the player’s 15th match in official competitions (Championship, country D’s Cup, European Cups) during only the second season on which the player will be registered for Club C and after receipt of invoice and fiscal declarations from the Agent”. 2. According to art. 4 of the 1st agreement, the “agent [i.e. the Claimant] declares not to have any type of relationship with the Player’s Agent or representatives of football player, Mr. E or with the same footballer [i.e. the player], raising Club C [i.e. the Respondent] from every responsibility deriving from this circumstance”. 3. On 30 August 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent signed another agreement (hereinafter: the 2nd agreement) which stipulated the following: “On 15th November 2011 (sic!: 2010) was signed a mandate [i.e. the 1st agreement] to the Agent [i.e. the Claimant] to take care Club’s [i.e. the Respondent] interests giving assistance on registration of player E [i.e. the player] (31.03.1991); On 9th March 2011, the player E signed a preliminary agreement with employment contract with Club C [i.e. the Respondent] with starting date for the sporting season 2011-2012; After the rules issued by the country D’s Football Association on 5th July 2011, the Club C could not register anymore the player, not EU citizen; Club C confirms its obligation to pay the agreed commission of EUR 1,500,000 pursuant to clause 3.a of the mandate (of 15th November 2010) [i.e. the 1st agreement] to be paid within 7 days by the future registration of the player E with Club C […]Referring to the bonus that Club C should pay to the Agent according to clause b), c), d) and e) of the mandate signed on 15th November 2010 [i.e. 1 st agreement], hereby the Parties change the following conditions in this way: first season is to be intended as Second season second season is to be intended as third season third season is to be intended as fourth season”. 4. The 2nd agreement also stipulated that “all the other conditions of the mandate signed on 15th November 2010 [i.e. the 1st agreement] which are not expressly changed by the present Agreement [i.e. the 2nd agreement] are still perfectly valid”. 5. On 23 April 2014, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed a decision in which he decided to accept the complaint of the Claimant and condemn the Respondent to pay him the amount of “EUR 1,250,000, plus 5% interest per year from 18 March 2013 until the date of effective payment”. 6. On 30 March 2015, the Claimant lodged a new claim with FIFA against the Respondent arguing that, although the player had been registered with the Respondent and had played with the latter a total of 18 matches during the third season (i.e. 2013-2014), the Respondent had failed to respect its contractual obligations towards him and the sum of EUR 500,000 was still outstanding based on art. 3 c. of the 1st agreement. In this respect, the Claimant explained that the 2 nd agreement specified inter alia that the term “second season” provided in the 1 st agreement was a mistake made by the parties which they had decided to rectify in the 2nd agreement by replacing it by “the third season”. 7. Consequently, the Claimant requested the total additional amount of EUR 500,000, plus 5% interest per year “as per the Mandate of 15th November 2010 [i.e. the 1st agreement] and the following Agreement of 30th August 2011 [the 2nd agreement] above mentioned”. 8. On 29 May 2015, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s complaint and confirmed that the player and the Respondent “on 3 January 2012 entered into a definitive employment contract valid until 30 June 2016”. The Respondent further stressed that, soon after having paid EUR 250,000 to the Claimant “with the intention to cover the remainder of agent’s [i.e. the Claimant] remuneration shortly afterwards”, it had “occasionally discovered” that the Claimant was also acting on behalf of the player at the time he negotiated the player’s transfer to the Respondent. Therefore, the Respondent deemed that it did not have any contractual obligation towards the Claimant and that the agreements “shall be considered invalid for being executed by the Claimant in violation of the FIFA Regulations, the country D’s Regulations as well as the provisions of the Mandate [i.e. 1st agreement] itself”. 9. The Respondent further argued that the 1st agreement had also been concluded “in violation of mandatory Football Association of country D forms of representation contracts” and should therefore be “considered null and void” for such reason. 10. Moreover, and in the “unlikely event it is decided that the mandate [i.e. the 1st agreement] cannot be declared invalid”, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant had failed to inform the Respondent of the alleged conflict of interest and the “clear link to the player and representation of his interests” and, therefore, requested FIFA to declare that the 1st agreement had been terminated with immediate effect and that “no remuneration is due” to the Claimant because of the “substantial violations and omissions committed by the Claimant”. 11. Alternatively, the Respondent was of the opinion that “the total payment of EUR 2,500,000 to the agent [i.e. the Claimant] who arranged for one single transfer of the young player” should be considered excessive and, therefore, the additional commission of EUR 500,000 should be reduced accordingly. 12. On 26 June 2015, the Claimant replied to the allegations of the Respondent by arguing that all the allegations of the Respondent were already rejected by CAS in its award dated 7 April 2015 with respect to the first decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee. In this regard, the Claimant explained that CAS had already confirmed the decision of the Single Judge of 23 April 2014 and stated that the agreements concluded by the parties in question were “valid and binding on the club […] and must fulfil its obligation pursuant to the Mandate [i.e. the 1st agreement] (and the Supplementary Agreement) [i.e. the 2nd agreement]”. 13. With regard to the allegations of the Respondent that the Claimant had represented the player’s interests while he was negotiating the player’s employment contract with the Respondent, the Claimant further provided a statement of the player dated 3 October 2013 which stated inter alia the following: “I the undersigned E [i.e. the player] […] state under oath […] in all my sporting career as professional player I have never been represented by the Players’ Agent A [i.e. the Claimant]. In particular I would point out that I have never given any mandate to Players’ Agent A, neither written nor oral […]”. 14. Regarding the alleged violation of mandatory Football Association of country D forms of representation contract, the Claimant deemed that both agreements, i.e. the 1st agreement as well as the 2nd agreement, were in compliance with the “FIFA Regulations”. 15. Finally, with regard to the alleged disproportionate amount of commission, the Claimant explained that the “fix and variable remunerations were both voluntary agreed”. 16. Therefore, the Claimant “taking into account the legal principle pacta sunt servanda, the CAS 2014/A/3742 Award issued on 7 April 2015 and the Decision of the Single Judge of the PSC issued on 23 April 2014” requested FIFA to accept the complaint and to condemn the Respondent to pay him the total sum of EUR 500,000 “plus interests, legal expenses and FIFA costs”. 17. Although having been invited to do so by FIFA, the Respondent never provided its last position in the matter at stake. 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 30 March 2015, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the 2014 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 30 March 2015, the 2008 edition of the Players’ Agents (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 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. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent had signed the 1 st agreement, by means of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent inter alia the sum of EUR 1,500,000 “to be paid 7 days to the receipt of International Transfer Certificate by Club C [i.e. the Respondent] and after receipt of invoice and fiscal declarations from the Agent [i.e. the Claimant]” for the transfer of the player to the Respondent. 7. Likewise, the Single Judge noted that on 30 August 2011, the Claimant had concluded the 2 nd agreement with the Respondent, which amended part of the 1st agreement and according to which the Respondent confirmed inter alia “its obligation to pay the agreed commission of EUR 1,500,000 […] to be paid within 7 days by the future registration of the player E with Club C [i.e. the Respondent]”. 8. The Single Judge also acknowledged that in the 2nd agreement the parties also agreed to amend inter alia the following terms included in the 1st agreement: “first season is to be intended as Second season second season is to be intended as third season third season is to be intended as fourth season”. 9. Furthermore, the Single Judge underlined that, on the one hand, the Respondent had argued that the Claimant had infringed the Regulations by violating the principle which prohibits double representation, whereas, on the other hand, the Claimant had claimed that, although the player had been registered with the Respondent and had played with the latter a total of 18 matches during the third season (i.e. season 2013-2014), he had not received the additional sum of EUR 500,000 as per the 1st and the 2 nd agreement. 10. With the aforementioned in mind and starting with the position of the Respondent, the Single Judge remarked that the latter rejected the Claimant’s complaint arguing the existence of a conflict of interest due to the fact that the Claimant was allegedly representing the player and the Respondent in the same transaction, i.e. the transfer of the player to the Respondent. 11. In this context, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that art. 19 par. 8 of the Regulations, which provides inter alia that “A players’ agent may only represent the interests of one party per transaction”, was enacted, among other things, in order to ensure that a players’ agent is not remunerated twice for the services he renders in a same transaction. 12. In continuation, the Single Judge referred to the wording of the statement of the player dated 3 October 2013 and noted that the player himself had confirmed having never been represented by the Claimant. 13. In view of the above, the Single Judge held that, according to the documentary evidence contained in the file, the Claimant clearly appears to have never represented the Respondent and the player in the same transaction. In this context, and while referring to article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Single Judge was keen to underline that the Respondent had not been able to provide any convincing documentary evidence demonstrating that the Claimant was also representing the player in said transaction. 14. Having said this, the Single Judge observed that the parties had agreed upon in the 2 nd agreement to amend inter alia the terms of the conditions for the potential additional commission payments contained in its article 3. In particular, the Single Judge duly took note that the term “second season” was to be intended as “third season”. 15. In continuation, the Single Judge acknowledged that it remained uncontested by the parties that the player reportedly played a total of 18 matches with the Respondent during the season 2013-2014, i.e. the third season. In this regard, the Single Judge also took note that the Claimant had brought evidence in this respect in accordance with article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. 16. Consequently, and in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must fulfil the obligation it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant by means of the different agreements signed between the parties, and therefore, the Respondent must pay the Claimant the commission stipulated in article 3 c) of the 1st agreement. 17. In continuation, with regard to the Claimant’s request for interest at a rate of 5% p.a. over the amount of EUR 500,000 as from 15 November 2010, the Single Judge decided to reject such request and to grant interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim, i.e. 30 March 2015. 18. In view of all the above, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided to accept the Claimant’s claim against the Respondent, to reject the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent and held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant a total sum of EUR 500,000, plus 5% interest p.a. from 30 March 2015 until the date of effective payment. 19. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 30 par. 5 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. 20. On account of the above and considering that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted but that the Respondent is the party at fault, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 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. 21. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is higher than CHF 200,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 22. In conclusion, and in view of the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 22,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 22,000 has to be paid by the Respondent 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, Players’ Agent A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Players’ Agent A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the total amount of EUR 500,000, plus 5% interest p.a. over the said amount as from 30 March 2015 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum, plus interest, is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 22,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Club C, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 4.1. The amount of CHF 17,000 has to be paid to FIFA 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 4.2. The amount of CHF 5,000 has to be paid directly to the Claimant, Players’ Agent A. 5. The Claimant, Players’ Agent A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 4.2. above are to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 58 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 Marco Villiger Deputy Secretary General (Administration) Encl. CAS directives