F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – players’ and match agents disputes / controversie agenti di calciatori – (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 29 August 2017, by 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 club Club C, Country D as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

Decision of the Single Judge

of the Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 29 August 2017,

by

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 club

Club C, Country D

as “Respondent”

regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

I. Facts of the case

1. On 5 July 2014, the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an “Authorization” valid until 20 July 2014, by means of which the Respondent authorised the players’ agent, Agent A (hereinafter: the Claimant), licensed by the Football Association of Country B, “to act on behalf of the [Respondent] in relations with Club E (Country F), and with the professional football player, Player G, with the right to conduct negotiations regarding possible transfer of the Player from Club E to [the Respondent], without prejudice, and without the right to sign any documents on behalf of the [Respondent] or to effect any deals on behalf of the [Respondent]”.

2. On 19 and 22 July 2014, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of a commission fee of EUR 550,000 for his services regarding the transfer of the player to the Respondent.

3. On 24 July 2014, the Respondent replied, denying any services of the Claimant leading to the transfer of the player as well as any amounts agreed upon by the parties for such transfer.

4. On 4 September 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, claiming that the latter had breached the “Authorization” by failing to pay his commission fee for the transfer of the player from Club E (hereinafter: Club E) to the Respondent.

5. In this regard, the Claimant explained that as of January 2014, he had scouted and suggested the Respondent to hire the services of the player.

6. The Claimant also held that, following the signature of the “Authorization”, the Respondent and he allegedly agreed that in the event the player was transferred permanently to the Respondent, the latter would have to pay 10% of the transfer compensation, as a lump sum, to the Claimant.

7. Moreover, the Claimant sustained that, on 10 July 2014, a meeting was organised between the alleged representative of the Respondent, Representative H, the alleged representative of the player and of Club E, Representative J, and the Claimant in order to finalise the terms of the transfer of the player. At that point, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent offered EUR 5,500,000 to Club E for the permanent transfer of the player and EUR 1,800,000 to the player for each season.

8. In order to evidence his involvement in the relevant transfer, the Claimant provided a confirmation of reservation for Representative J at a hotel in City K for the period from 10 to 13 July 2014 as well as an e-mail from Representative J pertaining to visa requirements in Country D.

9. Subsequently, the Claimant highlighted that following the aforementioned meeting in City K, the Respondent apparently communicated directly with Representative J and ignored the Claimant.

10. The Claimant also emphasised that, following the Respondent’s announcement on its official Twitter account respectively on 19 July 2014 – stating that it was “close to signing a contract with a Rising Star of Country L: 24 years old Player G” – and on 20 July 2014 – publishing Club E’s official announcement that “the player was transferred to [the Respondent] for the amount of EUR 5.5 million” –, he sent the relevant default notices to the Respondent (cf. point I.2. above) in order to remind it of its alleged obligations of payment in relation with said transfer.

11. Consequently, the Claimant requested FIFA to condemn the Respondent to pay him the total amount of EUR 550,000 corresponding to 10% of the transfer fee paid to Club E, plus 5% interest p.a. as of the date of signature of the transfer agreement by both clubs. The Claimant further requested the imposition of sanctions on the Respondent as well as the payment of EUR 35,000 as legal fees by the Respondent.

12. In its statement of defence, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim in its entirety. In particular, the Respondent underlined that there was no representation contract or any other contract concluded between it and the Claimant. The Respondent also emphasised that the “Authorization” given to the Claimant was non-exclusive and did not entitle him to sign any document on behalf of the Respondent.

13. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged that no evidence was submitted by the Claimant indicating that the player had been introduced by him or that he was a party of the “intense negotiations between the parties”.

14. In addition, the Respondent stated that, on 7 July 2014, it signed the “Agreement on service rendering for transfer agreement conclusion on professional football player transfer” (hereinafter: the Agreement) with Agent M, according to which the latter was to assist in negotiating and organising the relevant transfer of the player, in exchange of a remuneration of EUR 600,000 to be paid by 30 December 2014.

15. Finally, the Respondent insisted on the Claimant not being part of the negotiations since, according to the Respondent, he did not show true knowledge of the terms of the transfer of the player and only used public sources to lodge his claim. In particular, the Respondent sustained that the amount agreed upon by the parties for the relevant transfer amounted to EUR 6,000,000, and not EUR 5,500,000 as alleged by the Claimant. The Respondent further explained that on 16 July 2014, both clubs signed the transfer agreement and on 29 July 2014, the player entered into a labour contract with the Respondent. Based on the aforementioned events and the Agreement, on 28 July 2014, the Respondent paid Agent M the amount of 27,600,000 (approx. EUR 600,000). In support of its allegations, the Respondent provided the relevant transfer agreement, employment contract and payment order for Beneficiary “Company N”.

16. In his replica, the Claimant reiterated having represented the Respondent in the negotiations with the player and mainly referred to the Respondent’s statement, by means of which it claimed having signed the transfer agreement with Club E on 16 July 2014, i.e. within the time-frame set forth by the “Authorization”.

17. In any event, the Claimant questioned the validity of the transfer agreement provided by the Respondent, alleging that said document was forged insofar as it does not contain the Respondent’s official stamps – contrary to the employment contract signed with the player – which is apparently compulsory as per Football Union of Country D’s Regulations. Moreover, the Claimant sustained that the document provided by the Respondent to FIFA bears a different signature of the Respondent’s President, President O, compared to the one in the employment contract and the “Authorization”.

18. In order to substantiate that he was a party to the negotiations held in City K, the Claimant submitted a notary approval of the stamps, in Language of Country D, on his passport for his alleged arrival on 10 July 2014 and for his alleged departure on 12 July 2014.

19. Furthermore, the Claimant refuted all allegations as to the alleged agent of the Respondent, Agent M. In this regard, the Claimant pointed out that the employment contract and the transfer agreement do not mention Agent M or any agent’s name. Therefore, the Claimant explained that in the event the Agreement was signed on 7 July 2014, the lack of mention of Agent M on the relevant documents would have prevented the Respondent from making the relevant payment to her, as per Law of Country D. In any event, the Claimant stressed that the payment order allegedly made to Agent M actually indicates for beneficiary name “Company N.”, which is a supplier of travel services to the Respondent and not Agent M’s agency or law firm. Finally, the Claimant highlighted that there was no evidence provided by the Respondent as to Agent M negotiating with Club E or with the player.

20. In its duplica, the Respondent insisted on the Claimant not being a party of any negotiations which were hold in connection with the transfer of the player.

21. Besides, the Respondent alleged that the Civil Code of Country D contained no requirements that a contract should be stamped, and that, in any event, international transfer contracts did not have to be stamped or registered with the Football Union of Country D.

22. Finally, the Respondent held that the translation of the Payment Order provided in its statement of defence bore a mistake regarding the beneficiary name and, thus, the Respondent upheld that the Payment Order in its Language of Country D version was made to Agent M.

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 at hand. In this respect, considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 September 2014, the Single Judge 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 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 4 September 2014, 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 between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Association of Country B and a Club of Country D regarding an alleged outstanding commission.

5. As a consequence, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee determined that he 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. 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 start with, the Single Judge took note that, on 5 July 2014, the Respondent granted an “Authorization” in favour of the Claimant with the sole purpose to “conduct negotiations regarding possible transfer of the player from [Club E] to [the Respondent], without prejudice and without the right to sign any documents on behalf of the [Respondent] or to effect any deals on behalf of the [Respondent]”. The Single Judge also observed that such “Authorization” was valid until 20 July 2014.

8. Equally, the Single Judge noted that, on 16 July 2014, Club E and the Respondent signed a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player; and, on 28 July 2014, the Respondent and the player concluded an employment contract.

9. In continuation, the Single Judge noticed that, on the one hand, the Claimant held that he was actively involved in the transfer of the player to the Respondent. Consequently, and as allegedly agreed upon by the parties following the signature of the “Authorization”, the Claimant deemed to be entitled to 10% of the transfer fee paid by Club E to the Respondent.

10. The Single Judge acknowledged that, for its part, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s allegations, maintaining that there was no representation contract or any other contract concluded with the Claimant in connection with said transfer.

11. Considering the aforementioned, the Single Judge recalled that, as clearly established in art. 19 par. 1 of the Regulations, a players’ agent shall be permitted to represent a player or a club only by concluding the relevant written representation contract with that player or club. Furthermore, as stated in art. 19 par. 4 and 5 of the Regulations, the representation contract shall explicitly state who is responsible for paying the player’s agent and in what manner; such a representation contract must contain the following minimum details: the names of the parties, the duration and the remuneration due to the players’ agent, the general terms of payment, the date of completion and the signature of the parties. Besides, in accordance with art. 20 par. 5 of the Regulations, a players’ agent who has been contracted by a club shall be remunerated for his services by payment of a lump sum that has been agreed upon in advance.

12. Equally, the Single Judge further emphasised that, in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the burden of proof has to be carried by the party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact.

13. Bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge first of all highlighted that the “Authorization” signed by the Respondent in favour of the Claimant does not comply with the minimum prerequisites listed in art. 19 par. 5 of the Regulations. In particular, the Single Judge pointed out that such “Authorization” did not foresee any provision as to the remuneration due to

the Claimant in the event of successful negotiations or in the event of effective transfer of the player to the Respondent.

14. In addition, the Single Judge emphasised that the Claimant did not provide any conclusive documentary evidence, such as a supplementary agreement to the “Authorization” or any other written document, in order to support his claim for the payment of a commission fee based on 10% of the transfer compensation paid to the Respondent for the transfer of the player. Indeed, the Single Judge pointed out that the requested percentage was merely based on an alleged agreement between the parties, of which there is no evidence whatsoever.

15. As a result, and referring to art. 19 of the Regulations as well as considering that no written agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent seemed to exist in connection with the payment of a commission to the Claimant in relation to the player’s move to the Respondent, the Single Judge concluded that the claim of the Claimant in this regard had to be rejected as it lacked legal basis.

16. Accordingly, in view of the aforementioned conclusion, the Single Judge decided that the question of whether the Claimant had taken part in the negotiations of the relevant transfer of the player had become moot.

17. Moreover, the Single Judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Players’ Status Committee’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this respect.

18. Finally, 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.

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. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 550,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000.

20. Considering the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings in the amount of CHF 20,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by the Claimant.

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 in the amount of CHF 20,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. Considering that the Claimant already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the latter has to pay the remaining amount of CHF 15,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXX:

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. 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

For the Single Judge of the

Players’ Status Committee:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS directives